Case 8.1
Acme Markets, Inc., was a national food retail chain headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. At the time of the government action, John R. Park (respondent) was president of Acme, which employed 36,000 people and operated 16 warehouses.
In 1970, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) forwarded a letter to Mr. Park describing, in detail, problems with rodent infestation in Acme’s Philadelphia warehouse facility. In December 1971, the FDA found the same types of conditions in Acme’s Balti- more warehouse facility. In January 1972, the FDA’s chief of compliance for its Baltimore office wrote to Mr. Park about the inspection. The letter included the following language:
We note with much concern that the old and new warehouse areas used for food storage were actively and extensively inhabited by live rodents. Of even more concern was the observation that such reprehensible conditions obviously existed for a prolonged period of time without any detection, or were completely ignored.
We trust this letter will serve to direct your attention to the seriousness of the problem and formally
advise you of the urgent need to initiate whatever measures are necessary to prevent recurrence and ensure compliance with the law.
After Mr. Park received the letter, he met with the vice president for legal affairs for Acme and was assured that he was “investigating the situation immediately and would be taking corrective action.”
When the FDA inspected the Baltimore warehouse in March 1972, there was some improvement in the facility, but there was still rodent infestation. Acme and Mr. Park were both charged with violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Acme pleaded guilty. Mr. Park was convicted and fined $500; he appealed based on error in the judge’s instruction, given as follows:
The individual is or could be liable under the statute even if he did not consciously do wrong. However, the fact that the Defendant is president and chief executive officer of the Acme Markets does not require a finding of guilt. Though he need not have personally participated in the situation, he must have had a responsible relationship to the issue. The issue is, in this case, whether the Defendant, John R. Park, by virtue of his position in the company, had a position of authority and responsibility in the situation out of which these charges arose.
The court of appeals reversed Mr. Park’s conviction, and the government appealed.
